posted
Paul's notorious practice of softening and sweetening up the gospel to attract people is actually another one of the things that bug the crap out of me.
Of course you make yourself accomodating to people, but you don't take it upon yourself to change doctrine to do it!
And if Paul didn't mean to change the essential message - if he thought of what he was writing as press releases rather than as canonical as the gospels - then the Bible's editor is starting to bother me.
[ January 14, 2004, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:For example, he pretty much introduced the idea of blatant syncretic adoption whereby pagan beliefs and festivals got pretty much wholesale copied into Christianity.
Where did he do this?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think he did think of himself as a press release editor for most of his writings (a very highly placed press release editor, such as the pope is). His letters are clearly persuasive and political in intent.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres, I've never come across that definition of relativism anywhere. I'd be highly suprised if anyone, anywhere ever formulated a system that sounded like that.
I think I may have to crux of our misunderstanding (well, other than your view of what I see as a continuum as a dichotomy).
quote:With relativism, the right answer changes based on who is doing the judging.
From all I know of it, this is patently false. However, this is no so much because the statement is wrong as it doesn't make sense. Relitavism doesn't concern itself with absolute, objective issues of right and wrong. Speaking of the "right answer" in relativism is missing the point. Moral relativism speaks to the subject, to the specific situation. It talks about the responsibility that someone bears for their actions, not whether those actions were right or wrong.
A good example comes from Speaker for the Dead (don't read any more if you don't want the book to be spoiled). The pequinos killed people. This was bad. However, from their understanding of the world that formed the context of their actions, they were giving those people the greatest gift they could. From the pequino perspective, they intended and were doing great good. When Ender help changed their perspective, they perceived how wrong their actions were and went wild with grief. In their new context, killing humans (as Warmaker does) would be a terrible thing. The same actions, different contexts, and thus different responsibility. Now, the absolutist tradition, as represented by Ender's Calvinist student, states that "Their reasons are irrelevant. Murder is murder. They murdered, thus they are evil."
A further expansion of this thought, which lays further on the continuum between absolutism and relativism, is the concept of diminished responsibility. That is, the idea that people's acts are partly (or even completely) determined by external forces. If a person has no control over these influences, they can't logically be held responsible for them. In the completely deterministic view of the world, people are without any moral responsibility whatsoever. The amount of free will you assign to people determines the amount of responsibility you can logically attach to them.
Before, we talked about people from identical backgrounds making different choices. A good illustration of this point is people from different backgrounds making identical choices. Let's say, I, a relatively priviledged member of society made the same decisions in my life as a less priviledged person, say a drug-addicted deprived product of a single abusive parent home. Wouldn't it be logical to assume that they are actually a better person than I am? They had to work so much harder than I did to be the type of person that they were. From an absolutist standpoint, we are morally equivilent. From my standpoint, the parable of the talents and the idea of "To whom much is given, much is expected." cuts both ways. Your outcomes must be judged based on your inputs.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, It depends on who you ask. Almost no one (that I've read anyway) disagrees that Paul reformulated pagan holidays into Christain celebrations, in sort of the same way that some of the Germaninc and Celtic gods got added to the Catholic role of saints. They were performed pretty much as before, but they were dedicated to Christ rather than whatever god they were before.
Some people that Paul's introduction of pagan aspects into Christianity, although paling in comparison to Constantine's, was more widespread and fundamental. For example, there are indications that the Mass is heavily borrowed from the Orphic cult of Dionysis. Some people believe that Paul adapted the myth of a dying and resurrected god whose worship included the infusion of divine essence into bread (for Demeter) and wine (for Dionysis) into Christianity for his ministry in Greece.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to reformulate Bob's question. What would be a preferrable situation: having a child who believes that homosexuality is wrong and who hated homosexuals, or having one who believes that homosexuality is ok because it doesn't violate their basic moral ideals of love?
I think that there is a pretty strict division in our country between christians and CHRISTIANS, between those who view their religion as a personal set of ideals and others as more of a social labeling thing. I started a thread a little while back about the tendency of moderately dedicated religious Americans to be more prejudiced than either non-religious or highly dedicated religious Americans. I think that this fits in wonderfully here. Can you imagine someone believing that love for others is the basis of following the law participating in a lynching or being an active part of Hilter's Germany? I think there is often a big difference between people who follow the teachings of Jesus and people who self-identify as Christian.
That's in large part what this comes down to. Is your religion or morality or whatever something you use for self-discovery and self-improvement and maybe as a helpful guide to respectfully share with others or is it something that you use to tell you who it's ok to dehumanize and mistreat? I'll always try to support religion used a tool, but, on the other hand, I'll always oppose it when used as a weapon.
quote:What would be a preferrable situation: having a child who believes that homosexuality is wrong and who hated homosexuals, or having one who believes that homosexuality is ok because it doesn't violate their basic moral ideals of love?
Of course, conflating belief that homosexuality is wrong with hating homosexuals begs a large part of the question, doesn't it?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that thinking homosexuality is wrong necessarily means that you'll hate homosexuals. I've set up two opposing situations in which the is one aspect conforming to Christianity and one departing from it. In the first, the child conforms by thinking that homosexuality is wrong, but diverges in hating. In the second, the child diverges by thinking that homosexuality isn't wrong, and conforms by regarding love as the basis for his moral decision.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are these the two most likely/relevant scenarios, or just the scenarios for which you have an answer?
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Got you, MrSquicky. You're asking which deviation is a greater deviation from Christianity, then?
That makes sense, but in my mind it's too easily used as an excuse to avoid some of the more uncomfortable (to us humans) portions of Christianity.
Almost all goods require us to dance between opposing evils - that's why morality is a tough concept. Avoiding teaching that dance to children leaves serious gaps in the children's moral education.
posted
Dagonee, I can understand the slippery slope argument there, but I quite honestly don't think that this is anywhere near to the way this situation is dealt with in most of contemporary Christianity. One of the things that generally comes up in debates of religous pratices is that people feel that they can't go against their scripture. It's been said in this thread. "The Bible is against homosexuality, so I have to be too."
However, the pieces of the Bible that I brought up (and how many people really knew about the second one?) are, in my opinion, some of the most ignored pieces. I'm of the opinion that they clearly set up the exactly basis of morality. Jesus specifically says that the Commandment to love your neighbor is higher than any other and that this love is the basis for all the other laws. Be honest, how often is this talked about in Christian contexts. In my 12 years of Catholic schools, this was never taught. I learned it on my own through personal study of the Bible. Instead of this simple, all-pervaisive, and in-touch with human nature definition of morality, I got a bunch of Paul and Augustine and Aquinas and learned all about authority and about external rules of right and wrong.
I can literally count the number of times in my 3 years on Hatrack where I came across people talking about the ideas contained in those passages. It's one. In all the discussions of Christianity and morals and whatever that I've read, I'm the only person I can think of who ever talked about them in reference to what Jesus himself said was the most important commandment. I can't tell you how many times I've heard about the 10 commandments or stories from Genesis or Mosaic law or the ideas of midievel theologians. But the highest law of Christianty? Just once, just me, a non-Christian.
Like I said in the other thread, the highly dedicated to Christianity make up a very small percentage of the people who call themselves Christian and even follow the Bible, in their own way. Again from the other thread, the people who aren't dedicated are the ones who do all the bad things that people criticize religions for. I referenced Gordon Allport's intrinsic versus extrinsic relgion, and, if you look at it, I think you can see how it fits into people who recognize love of the other as the foundation of morality and people who use a legalistic authority based concept of morality.
Experience tells me that many people are going to read all that I wrote as attacks both on themselves as persons and on Christianity as a whole. I'll state again, I know Christianity pretty well. It's got many good points and, just like any other belief systems, some bad points. However, I am not against Christianity. I'm against bad Christians. I believe that if all the people who claimed to be Christians actually were Christians, the world would be indescribably better.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:esus specifically says that the Commandment to love your neighbor is higher than any other and that this love is the basis for all the other laws.
Actually, loving God is the 'greatest' commandment.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:MrSquicky said: I can understand the slippery slope argument there, but I quite honestly don't think that this is anywhere near to the way this situation is dealt with in most of contemporary Christianity.
I wasn’t making a slippery slope argument. I was making a “pick and choose” argument.
You asked which of two possible situations was a greater deviation from Christianity. I tend to agree with your choice there, but the larger point is it doesn’t matter – they are both deviations.
Giving in to the first form of departure from Christianity, just because you’re scared of the second, is still a departure.
The question should be, “How do I teach my child that homosexual actions are wrong while still teaching them to love everyone?” Not “Which aspect of Christianity is it better to fail to teach my children.”
quote:MrSquicky said: I think you can see how it fits into people who recognize love of the other as the foundation of morality and people who use a legalistic authority based concept of morality.
Again, I think you are creating an unnecessary distinction. It is possible to recognize love as the foundation of morality and still acknowledge the validity of “legalistic” (a word I’m only using for convenience) portions of morality.
quote:MrSquicky said: Again from the other thread, the people who aren't dedicated are the ones who do all the bad things that people criticize religions for.Emphasis added.
Absolutely not. Abolitionists were criticized for being “unrealistic” about their religion. Anti-abortion activists (even those who solely engage in peaceful protest) are criticized for being uncompassionate. Even Christians who merely follow the rules of chastity, never even proselytizing about them to others, are likely to be called repressed or prudish.
quote:MrSquicky said: I am not against Christianity. I'm against bad Christians.
But you only seem to be against Christians who are “bad” in the way you think is bad. And in doing so you have set up a dichotomy that does not need to exist. It seems you’re saying, “Christianity is OK as long as only the parts I like are believed.”
I stand by my earlier statement that true moral fiber is about being able to avoid opposing wrongs.
posted
Well in the fundamentalist evangelical Christian tradition in which I was raised, we definitely learned, the first and greatest commandment and the second like it, before we learned the ten commandments. (paraphrasing to the best of my memory)
quote: Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment and the second is like it, love thy neighbor as thyself, on these hang all the law and the prophets.
I'll have to cross check the King James to see how close to word perfect I got to see how well it was pounded into my memory banks, since I haven't recited it in years. Don't remember the exact reference either, though I'm leaning towards either Mathew 6 or 7 or maybe that was the verse not the chapter. I can definitely tell you that my brothers and I learned it by the age of four and didn't memorize the ten commandments (except in a watered down song version) til 4th or 5th grade.
We were also taught (as I believe the Jewish rabbis teach... rivka back me up or shoot me down on this) that the first five were about how you related to God and the second five were about how you related to others, exactly as the Mathew commandments sum up.
Interestingly enough even though there was a degree of homophobia in the churches we went to, I have never seen my parents exhibit any. I remember that there was a gay guy who regularly attended one of the bible studies my dad led for a while. In fact in actually relating with other people they always exhibited an extreme degree of tolerance, though a lot of it is viewed through a particular "bubble" world view. However if you were inside their bubble the amount of intolerance for non conformity was much much higher. I paid the price.
quote: We were also taught (as I believe the Jewish rabbis teach... rivka back me up or shoot me down on this) that the first five were about how you related to God and the second five were about how you related to others
*nods*
*starts to look for a link; realizes this is not that thread*
posted
Dagonee, I think you'd have a very difficult go of it trying to support that I equate bad Christians with people who believe things that I disagree with. I understand that this is how I look in your mind, but I really don't think that is is true. I believe that if you go back over my statements with a more objective eye, you'd have a different perspective. I'm really not that bad of a guy, I don't think.
I disagree with you about the dance, at least from a Christian perspective. I believe that, taking what Jesus actually said seriously leads to a very difficult way of living. The dance you describe, I believe, involves reconciling this way of living with "reality". For example, Jesus' admonition to extreme pacificism even to the point of willingly helping our enemies with the world of "Onward Christian Soldiers". As I said, I think that it is very clear that the foundation of all Christian morality is love. The Bible specifically states that, if someone truely loves God and their neighbor, it is impossible for them to sin. While such perfect love requires an impossibly perfect person, it's still not consistent to the message of the Bible to pretend that this is not the central basis of being a Christian.
It still comes back to the legalistic versus idealistic way of looking at things. When we're talking about the deviations in the example above, we're really talking about two different classes of thing. The homosexuality thing is a straight trangression of a moral rule. The hate thing, though, is a meta-morality issue, and, as such, can't really even be compared to the homosexuality. It's not just the breaking of a rule; it's a perversion of the entire moral system. The first case may be a sin, but, from the Christian perspective, hate is SIN, the apotheosis of human failing. There is no responsible dance around this. If you hate, you sin, much like the Pharisees that Jesus condemns for obeying all the moral laws but perverting their entire spirit.
In the legalistic tradition, there is no meta-moral level. The apotheosis of sin is merely disobedience. Their positive side is thus authority and you can hate all you want, as long as you follow all the rules. Hide it as much as you want, the main justification for authority systems is always power. Rules are followed because you are rewarded for doing so and punished for failing to do so, not because of any inherent rightness. This is reflected in the older form of the Catholic Act of Contrition, in which the penitent expresses regret of their sins specifically because they "fear the loss of heaven and dread the fires of hell."
My contention is that it is clear which mode Jesus makes a commandment and that it is equally clear, from looking at Christian history and it's current state, which one has been followed by the vast majority of Christians. I could dive back into intrinsic versus extrinsicity in religion, morality, and, ultimately motivation to show exactly why a content-irrelevant reward-punishment system is going to lead to exactly the sort of ignorance, prejudice, and all around bad stuff that I'm decrying, but, I'm going to need some indication that it would actually be worth the effort.
The important thing to realize here is that I'm not characterizing any specific beliefs as bad. Support of homosexuality may be bad or good, or indifferent. That's not the issue here. Rather, it's a matter of how these beliefs are held.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, Paul, taken in perspective, is one of my favorite people from early Christianity. Of course, most of the rest of them were considered heresiarchs, so you may not want ot take my opinion of him. I think you've got to look at him in context. Sure, he looks bad when viewed by modern standards. The man founded the doctrine of the divine right of kings, for Pete's sake. However, I don't think that Paul deserves any of the bad stuff that's heaped on him.
Consider that he was as he represents himself, a guy who received a revelation from God and then lived the rest of his life trying to share that revelation with other people. That's pretty close to how I see him. It's only when you believe that God was looking over his shoulder the entire time, forcing him to write and say the exact message that you kind of paradoxically start to look at him negatively.
In a time where the Jesus Movement was pretty much content to sit in Jerusalem and look down on everyone else while counting down for the end of the world, Paul was moved by compassion for the Gentiles. He threw himself into his mission and was pretty much constantly writing and teaching and traveling. When he came to meet with James and Peter, despite the widely divergent views they held, he was extremely respectful and desirous to learn from them. Unlike other Christian leaders (Peter for example) he bravely went about his mission with little fear for the consequences.
I feel that most of the negative parts of Pauline scripture were the consequence of the dual factors of 1) the morally primitive (from our perspective) world that he lived in and 2) his sincere belief that his world could quite likely end tommorow. I think that it's also important to acknowledge that much of the time, Paul was contesting with people who interpreted Jesus' message as a call for licentiousness. I honestly believe that, were Paul around today, he'd be one of the lights of the world, and I don't know how true that would be for many of the other early Christian leaders/
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
That's nice. I appreciate that Paul was focused on his mission.
My objections to "Paul" are really objections to turning everything thats in Scripture of his into Scripture in the first place. I.e., deciding that it is the word of God as opposed to the word of Paul.
I kind of have to wonder, you know, why someone like Paul would be included in canonical Scripture when some of the other early Christian writings are not. Or even some of the more modern Christian writings...
And I think the fault lies with the Council of Nicea first and foremost. Then with successive generations of Christian leaders who haven't straightened the whole thing out.
And then I realize they haven't done it either because: a) They truly believe that everything Paul wrote IS bona fide word of God, or b) They aren't really all that worried about what is or is not canonical Scripture.
Since I fall squarely in the second camp, I just feel free to decide on my own that Paul, like all of canonical scripture, has some good, some bad, and some just plain irrelevant material. And it is my job, as it is the job of every Christian, to think about it and apply what works. I'll just try not to get too worried about the rest of it. My goals are, pardon the joke, less lofty than others. I figure I can only decide for myself.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, I understand the LDS objection to the council of Nicea, but I think you'd have to look much earlier for where screwing around with canonical scripture started. Also, there's a whole mess of issues that you get into when you start looking outside the canonical Bible.
I think that the biggest issue of competing interpretation during early Christianity was the nature of Jesus. To put it simply, was he all god, part man and part god, or all man with divine inspiration? Beginning a little after the start of the 2nd century, there were writings and letters from some groups calling other groups heretics. The most acrimonious (for what I've read) where from people who believed that Jesus was divine, either all or in part, against those who believed he was a divinely inspired man. One of the prominent bishops whose name escapes me at the moment championed the current 4 gospels (M, M, L, and J), which clearly claim that Jesus was divine, and called for what was essentially a crusade against people who held othe books canon, so that they be killed and their scriptures destroyed. Historical records are really spotty about this, but I believe that this is pretty much what happened.
If you look at them with a critical eye, you'll notice that there is a great deal missing from the Gospels as a story of Jesus' life. You get the prelude, the birth, and then 3 years of teaching. That's pretty much it. Almost everything else is missing. However, that's not because people didn't write about it, but rather, for whatever reasons, it wasn't included in the canon. My belief is that it made Jesus seem too human and showed that his message developed over time, rather than being beamed down from heaven.
I'm again going to bring this back to legalism versus idealism. My belief is that this formed the main basis of contention between the divine/non-divine groups. From a idealistic perspective, it almost doesn't matter if Jesus was divine, or even, if he ever even existed. The message and the meaning is what is important. It is, as Jesus said, that he was an example for people to follow, not a ruler to command them. On the other hand, you have people who put their trust in authority. As such, Jesus had to be divine or else his message didn't deserve unquestioned obedience. My theory is that the authoritarian, legalistic viewpoint became canon specifically because those were the guys who were willing to kill, rape, and burn the opposition. They were centered on power and thus got the power to make the decisions.
Of course, all of that is completely my opinion, so take it for what it's worth, i.e. not very much. I'm sure that I've made the conjectures I've made on little evidence sound a lot more supported than they are. As I said, records from this time are extremely rare, so most of what I said is me projecting what I think would happen in that sort of situation.
---
Oh, I was thinking about some of the jazzier things Paul said. One of the things that I really like about him is his emphasis of community over law, like when he says that if you take another believer to court, you've already lost. That's not the sort of thing you'd heard from other leaders around his time.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to add another possibilty to that list.
c) They were unsure about what was canon and what wasn't, but were heavily invested in the idea that they shouldn't be unsure. They cared but were unable to rationally countenance doubt. So they looted Constantinople.
I think that the people making those decisions were pretty much like you and me, rather than some sort of giants or villians in history. They were just people, generally trying to do the best they could.
posted
I like many of the things that Paul said. I love the treatise on charity/love/agape. I like his pleading for the saints to become one. I love the scriptures about spiritual things being understood spiritually. I just don't like everything.
This does present something of a dillemma for me. Paul's the only prophet whose words I've read and the inner response has been "What the crap?" It can't be sheer personality - Moroni's and Nephi's also have loads of personality. Maybe it's just PAUL's personality.
It's on my list of questions. They are not faith-breaking questions - most of what Paul said is duplicated elsewhere, and my testimony of Christ and the veracity of the Bible rests much more on the gospels than Paul's letters anyway, and I trust there is an answer I do not yet understand - but I do wonder.
Yay for additional scripture. It's nice to have backup.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:You get the prelude, the birth, and then 3 years of teaching. That's pretty much it. Almost everything else is missing. However, that's not because people didn't write about it, but rather, for whatever reasons, it wasn't included in the canon. My belief is that it made Jesus seem too human and showed that his message developed over time, rather than being beamed down from heaven.
The problem with that theory is that the non-canonical childhood narratives all show Jesus as less human and more divine. Stories about him working miracles in his father’s carpentry shop and raising dead baby birds to life. The major canonical arguments were with the Gnostics and Marcionites who didn’t believe that Jesus was fully human – they taught that he was a divine spirit who merely took on the appearance of a human body.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:MrSquicky said: There is no responsible dance around this. If you hate, you sin, much like the Pharisees that Jesus condemns for obeying all the moral laws but perverting their entire spirit.
The point of the “dance” isn’t how much to hate in acknowledging the sin in homosexual actions is permissible – it’s about how to acknowledge the sin without hating at all.
Similarly, the command to love does not give one license to pretend homosexual actions are not sinful for fear of hating (or for fear of being perceived as hating).
I’m not disputing any of your analysis on the centrality of love to Christian doctrine. However, part of loving someone is providing moral guidance when necessary, especially when raising your own children. When a child is baptized in the Catholic Church, for example, the parents and godparents each make solemn vows (as solemn as wedding vows) to teach the children the beliefs of the Church.
I don’t think you’re a bad guy. I think you have accurately focused on one of the core concepts of Christianity, but have set up the false choice between that core concept and another one.
quote:MrSquicky said: I could dive back into intrinsic versus extrinsicity in religion, morality, and, ultimately motivation to show exactly why a content-irrelevant reward-punishment system is going to lead to exactly the sort of ignorance, prejudice, and all around bad stuff that I'm decrying, but, I'm going to need some indication that it would actually be worth the effort.
I doubt it would be worth the effort, because each time you’ve presented that argument you have pretty clearly stated or implied that the “ignorance, prejudice, and all around bad stuff” is a direct and inevitable result of any sort of specific rules-based morality (I won’t use legalistic here).
The point is that every good can be used to justify something bad. “Perfect love” does not imply loving to the exclusion of all else. And misdirected (I won’t say excess) compassion can cause people to act sinfully. For example, failing to discipline a child out of love and compassion (and I’m not talking “spare the rod” type of mentality here, just normal “eat your vegetables” stuff) can doom a child to an ineffective, ever-disappointing adulthood. Think of a parent not getting a child vaccinated because the child hates shots. Protecting a child from pain and suffering is good. What the parent fails to take into account is that subjecting the child to the shot to avoid future pain and suffering is even better.
Perfect love may require telling certain people their actions are wrong. Think abolitionists, for example. A clear case where loving (both of captive slaves and the slaveholders) required a clear, bold statement that someone was doing something wrong. Failing to do so would have been a failure to love both the slave and the slaveholder.
Clearly homosexual actions do not approach the evil of slavery. I happen to think that some Christians get too exercised over the sexual aspect of morality to the exclusion of other aspects (such as love). But I think a Christian parent who believes homosexual actions are sinful is not excused by the overriding importance of love from teaching his children.
posted
Darn it dkw, I was trying to get away with not talking about the Gnostics, as it is a much more complicated issue that I don't think is really relevant. Short answer, yes, the Gnostic thing was a huge deal, but it was (in my opinion) largely about the extreme matter-spirit dualism of the Gnostics, the twin problems of orgiastic licentiousness or ascetic withdraw from the world, and the Marcionist-type belief that the Jewish scriptures were oppositional to the Christian scriptures. That is, it was not specifically about the issue of Christ's divinity, although some of the more "He was just faking being human" probably did make it a bigger issue than I'm claiming. Also, while many (more likely most Gnostics) considered Jesus all-spirit, some other Gnostic groups again denied that he was anything but a divinely inspired man. Also. I still maintain that one of the most acrimonious (maybe the most was overstatitng it) divisions was between the divine/non-divine crowds.
As for non-canonical writings, I've never read any gospel from that time that talks about Jesus as purely human. However, I feel like this is good evidence for my point, that they were systematically destroyed. We know that there were groups of people who believed this and that they had writings. The call I talked about above (and I was hoping you could tell me who it was from, I think it was a bishop in the 120s) specifically mentioned the destruction of their writings. Now, it's possible that they were self-referential writings not claiming to be an accounting of Jesus' life, but I think there is room to believe that they might have been more than that.
I want to make it clear that at best I consider myself a dilletante in Christian history and such. I pick up things here and there as they interest me, but I've never put into the sort of serious, systematic study that would justify a large degree of confidence in what I'm saying. But, I like to talk about the ideas, especially from a social dynamics standpoint, where I am qualified to talk with confidence.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it makes you feel better, kat, you can look at it as Squick saying he's NOT qualified to talk about anything else with confidence. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, I feel like this is good evidence for my point, that they were systematically destroyed.
*snort*
My favorite gospel is the one where Ector claimed Jesus was really the bastard son of Marius, and he was killed by enemies of Caesar to prevent confusion in terms of succession to Rome.
What, you haven't heard of that one? Proves my point! It was SO right, they got rid of it!
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squicky, why would the groups who believed Jesus was only a divinely inspired man have written about his early life? There wouldn’t have been any point in it for them. Many of those groups believed that when the Holy Spirit came upon Jesus at his baptism that was his “adoption” as the Son of God – a received title. But that fits perfectly well with the canonical gospels – particularly Mark, which starts the story with Jesus baptism. Who would bother to write about his perfectly ordinary childhood before that point?
Edit: Almost forgot -- are you thinking of Irenaeus?
posted
Dagonee, I don't think what you described as a parent preventing their child from being innoculated because it's a bit of pain that is for their benefit can accurately be described as love, especially in the sense current when Jesus was teaching. To me, it is a great deal more like selfishness. Love is not the desire to keep all pain from someone. That's possessive identification. Love is an engagement with the total person and a desire for them to be as fully themselves as they can be. Likewise, love is not avoiding truths that are unpleasant. Love, in Jesus' time, carried a strong component of knowlege along with it. The word for sexual intimacy and to know was the same. Thus, we use "knowing in the Biblic sense" as a euphamism for having sex with someone. To love, to know someone is to acknowledge both good and bad about them.
Also, I'm not entirely sure where we are here. Are you agreeing with me that love is a more important basis for Christian morality than obediance is? If so, then the issue becomes whether or not we agree that this basis is largely rejected or ignored by Christians in history and currently.
I'm going to quote john Stuart Mill here, because he's an dead guy who is well regarded, so he can get away with saying things in a way that I can't. Also, I think the world would be a better place if more people went around quoting On Liberty.
quote:To what an extent doctrines intrinsically fitted to make the deepest impression upon the mind may remain in it as dead beliefs, without ever being realized in the imagination, the feelings, or the understanding, is exemplified by the manner in which the majority of believers hold the doctrines of Christianity. By Christianity I here mean what is accounted such by all churches and sects - the maxims and precepts contained by the New Testament. These are considered sacred, and accepted as laws, by all professing Christians. Yet, it is scarcely too much to say that not one Christian in a thousand guides or tests his individual conduct by reference to those laws. The standard to which he does refer it, is the custom of his own nation, his class, or his religious profession. He has thus, on the one hand, a collection of ethical maxims, which he believes to have been vouchsafed to him by infallible wisdom as rules for his government; and on the other, a set of everyday judgements and practices, which go to a certain lengthwith some of the maxims, not so great a length with others, stand in direct opposition to some, and are, on the whole, a comprimise between the Christian creed amd the interests and suggestions of worldly life. To the first of these standards he gives his homage; to the other his real allegiance. All Christians belive that the blessed are poor and humble, and those who are ill-used by the world; that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven; that they should judge not, lest they be judged; that they should swear not at all; that they should love their neighbor as themselves; that if one take their cloak, they should give him their coat also; that they should take no thought for the morrow; that if they would be perfect, they should sell all that they have and give it to the poor. They are not insincere when they say that they believe these things. They believe them, as people believe what they have always heard lauded and never dicussed. But in the sense of the living belief which regulates conduct, they believe these doctrines just up to the point to which it is usual to act upon them. The doctrines in their integrity are serviceable to pelt adversaries with; and it is understood that they are to be put forward (when possible) as the reasons for whatever people do that they think laudable. But any one who reminded them that the maxims require an infinity of things which they never even think of doing, would gain nothing but to be classed amoung those very unpopular characters who affect to be better than other people. The doctrines have no hold on ordinary believers - are not a power in their minds. They have a habitual respect for the sound of them, but no feeling which spreads from the words to the things signified, and forces the mind to take them in, and make them conform to the formula. Whenever conduct is concerned, they look round for Mr. A and B to direct them how far to go in obeying Christ.
This largely captures my feelings. As I said before, many people claim that they have no choice over what they believe, that they only follow the Bible. And yet, they consistently don't follow the Bible in cases where they don't even think about it. I don't think that anyone with any respect for their own integrity could suggest that all but a very few Christians have ever followed those explicit Biblical doctrines which Mill lists above.
And, it's not primarily a question of human weakness. The problem isn't that people just don't measure up to these standards. It's that they don't even use them as standards to begin with. There is an enormous difference between not keeping a commandment, say to love your neighbor as yourself, because you were not strong enough to resist temptation not to and not keeping it because it has never entered into the pattern of your life.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw, I think that it might be a consequence of my own understanding of divine inspiration, such that it is not a replacement of what was in someone with a divine message, but rather sort of an enhancement of what is in the person already. I'd expect that Jesus' message grew out of his life and, as such, his life would be of extreme interest to the people who believed his message. But, I could see how, from an active conversion perspective, Jesus could have been an ordinary guy that God just zapped with revelation. In that case, it wouldn't make sense to be interested in his life.
edit: Although, that brings up an interesting question to me. If you believed that Jesus had a divine nature (be it mixed with human or not) wouldn't you want to know everything about his life, and not just about his divine provenance and then his ministry?
posted
I tend to agree with your understanding of divine revelation. I just don’t think anyone was writing that sort of historical-analytical biography at the time. It’s not a genre that developed until much later, I think.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Similarly, the command to love does not give one license to pretend homosexual actions are not sinful for fear of hating (or for fear of being perceived as hating).
TO all, not just Dagonee:
Well, suppose I just take a different tack altogether. That is that I am convinced, convicted and just plain sure to the marrow of my bones that God is not worried about homosexual actions and the stuff that's in the Bible about it came from man, not God.
How am I convinced of this?
Because the closer I get to God, the less I care about it.
And people I know who are close to God and whom I most respect as examples of good God-loving and God-living people don't worry about it.
And then there's the obverse that MIGHT prove the point. As in, IF I could also say that "anyone I've met who is all worked up over homosexuality and sin has never turned out to be a good example of Christianity in the other respects that I find most important." I would then be convinced totally of my interpretation.
Unfortunately for that pat conclusion, I have also met some good people who are in most respects very good examples of what it means to be a Christian who are convinced to the very marrow of their being that homosexuality is not just a sin, but a very important and greivous sin.
But I have also met some downright ignorant, violent people who are anti-homosexual. And I count them among the LEAST God-loving, God-living people on the face of the planet.
So, where does that leave me?
With my conviction that those who are absolutely convinced that homosexuality is a sin are wrong on this one score. But also with the concern, as expressed in the post with which I started this thread, that I may have this whole thing (CHRISTIANITY IN GENERAL) horribly, horribly wrong.
And if that's the case, I would sooner renounce my claim to being a Christian before I renounce the conviction of what I believe is not just true, but TRUE.
And that is: 1) Sex in general, and homosexuality in particular matters a lot less than people seem to think it does.
and
2) Men inserted a lot into Scripture, to the point where trying to decide what is WORD OF GOD, what is INSPIRED BY GOD, and what is JUST SOME GUY'S OPINION is nearly impossible (except in specific spots where it is made clear). The politics of canonicity are just one example of why this view seems reasonable to me.
and
3) The best ANYONE can do is try to figure it out, pray for help, and listen to people who have studied it. And also, recognize that we don't have it ALL right, no matter who we are and how literally we take the Bible, or give ourselves to the Spirit, or walk in the way, etc.
and
4) Most importantly, judging the sins of others is not our business. Period. And this is VERY important. That doesn't mean you can't learn from others mistakes or decide to avoid someone because you don't want the influence of their behaviors in your life. But it does mean that there is a limit to what you can and should say in pointing out the "sins" of others, or trying to control other people's lives.
I think about it this way. If God wanted us to control each other's lives, he would've found a way to state that principle outright SOMEWHERE in the huge volume of scripture. And he would've reiterated it in the renewed covenant. I'm serious here. I'm looking for a statement like "It's okay to point out the sins of homosexuality publicly."
Most importantly, I think if God wanted that level of control over individuals, He probably would've just reserved it for himself seeing as how he would do a far better job than the rest of us ever could, individually or collectively.
So, in imitation of God, I believe that religious people should never seek to stop people (other than their own offspring/dependants) from engaging in actions that harm themselves, or might harm themselves. Or, if you do, you should do it from the standpoint of pointing out the potential for harm, not the "sinful" nature of it.
I know, I know, we are supposed to be concerned for the harm that sin does to the immortal soul. But this is EXACTLY where God did draw the line in telling us not to go around judging the status of each others' souls. His job. Not our job. So, if you see someone doing something that you believe is harmful to them spiritually, surely you can find some way to approach the subject without the need to harp on their sin.
Or, if you do, then maybe it should be okay for everyone else to harp on your sins.
I wouldn't want that.
Who would?
Since the list of sins is ill-defined and probably infinite (especially in some people's viewpoint), I think concentrating on spotting and pointing out sin is the exactly the kind of activity that would land one's soul in a heap of trouble in the sweet by and by. Why?
Because: 1) It would mean a life of unGodlike behavior 2) It would mean a life of taking unto yourself that which is purely God's province. 3) It would mean following a path of negativity, constantly. 4) And it would mean concentrating on everyone else, and not on yourself and your own need to improve.
Again, unless I'm just horribly, horribly wrong.
(NOTE: Please don't launch into the reductio ad absurdummy argument here about society having the right to control murderers and rapists, etc. I think you know that the line between those kinds of behaviors and what we are talking about here is fairly clear, and also where we should err on the side of personal freedom).
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
I guess I'll quote the more relevant parts here. I was discussing long-term relationships and how I don't know if the "godly ideals" in the chapter are actually practical for human relationships.
quote: I was also contemplating I Corinthians 13 the famous "love chapter" and trying to bring it to a more human perspective.
Love is patient True, but sometimes love requires a kick in the behind when the other person is screwing up
Love is kind True however, what one person views as unkind isn't necessarily the same in others. Steve and I give each other a lot of sarcastic flak on a daily basis, and we enjoy it. However it takes some of my female friends completely aback, because they think we are being mean to each other.
Love does not behave itself unseemly. True but once again you have to have similar definitions of "unseemly". For example, my mother can't believe I would take off on weekend long dog shows or hatrack get togethers without Steve. She views it as a huge failing in our relationship. I on the other hand feel lucky to have found a guy that is secure enough in himself and in his trust of me, that he wants me to go do things I enjoy with or without him. Some of the things I enjoy, he doesn't, but that doesn't mean I have to stop participating in them. The same is true in reverse as well. I'm not really into RPGs and computer games, but if they make him happy, why not?
Love seeks not her own. True, unselfishness is key.
Love is not easily provoked. I know some relationships where one or the other will fly up into cinders over small things. However the reason those relationships are still together is because they don't hold grudges against each other. Not holding grudges is probably to me the more key thing than not provoking each other.
Love rejoices not in iniquity but rejoices in the truth.
Trust is key. I think more trust than honesty. Sometimes one person has to trust the other that they really don't need to know all the facts of whatever at the moment because it would make everything worse. But if you trust the person, then you know that what they aren't telling you is for a good reason. For a personal example Steve reads all my psychotic grandma mail before I do. Sometimes he never gives me the letter just the synopsis. Do I really want to know all of the hurtful things she said most recently? Not really, even if I might be curious about it. So I trust him to make the judgement call for me.
Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
At this point I believe he had to be refering to God, not humanity because there are certian things that shouldn't be put up with like abuse. This last line I have the most problem with I guess, because it would make someone incredibly naieve and easily victimized.
posted
Bob, it seems to me that your contention is that the largest sin - the worst thing you could do - is to judge.
It seems that this is your contention because, and forgive and correct me if I am misinterpreting you, saying someone is not performing a godly action feels wrong to you, but the action they are pointing out doesn't. I know you're a good guy, and you are sincere in questing about this.
Okay.
Okay, I have a theory, and I almost hate to say it because I don't want to disturb the good-Katie-will I somehow engendered. If you get annoyed, just remember the words of Slash and Olivia: "She's much nicer in person."
Maybe the reason one feels like a greater sin to you than the other is because you have a problem with the first and not the second.
I've noticed that I get all prickly about some actions, but don't even blink at others, when empirically and doctrinally they seem to be about the same. For instance, disobedient missionaries bug the crap out of me. I feel like you can do whatever you want, but go home and take the badge off first. There's no excuse for screwing around when you're supposed to be on the Lord's errand.
On the other hand, other things phase me not at all. It doesn't strike any sort of recognizable chord. I believe they're a sin, but they don't get under my skin like disobedient missionaries do.
------
Bob, I do believe the law of chastity is a commandment, and homosexual relations isn't part of it. The Lord doesn't give us commandments just to be capricious and goof off - they exist for a reason. For us to be happy. He isn't making up rules - he's describing a way to live that will make us the most happy.
I don't agree with Tres that adults need to be children to one another (I have a vivid memory of being told I was not "teachable" and thinking I would be if he had anything to say.), but we are children to God.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Anyway, Kat, you may indeed be correct, but I think there's more to it than just my own comfort level. When I read scripture, the parts that bubble to the surface for me are the ones that talk about the positive aspects of leading a Christian life, loving God, loving each other, and so much more.
I don't think the biggest possible sin is judging someone else.
I do think it is the most common sin on the planet and one that almost all humans are prone to, almost to the point of it being unnoticeable and "like breathing."
And, paradoxically, I have no problem pointing that out to people.
I just think that if we're going to start pointing out sins, we might as well start with one we can all relate to.
Oh, and I didn't think you weren't being nice. I posted that opinion for people to react to. This thread is entirely sincere on my part. I feel like I'm so far off-base after listening to opinions about homosexuality that I must be creating my own religion off on the sidelines of Christianity or something.
People truly seem to think that proscriptions against homosexuality are somehow central to Christian and Jewish faith.
I see that stuff as so peripheral as to be something to be completely ignored. I think the passages mentioning this stuff in the Bible are so idiosyncratic as to be easily edited out without any damage to the overall message of Scripture.
So, if I'm wrapped around the axle on this one, it is not because I am waiting for God's go-ahead to become homosexual. Or because I have this fetish for pointing out the nasty little secrets of our almost universal "sin" of negativity and judgemental attitudes.
It's because I don't understand how something that people tell me is central and important can feel so downright silly and peripheral to me. It's not like I'm completely ignorant of Scripture. It isn't like I never heard the "sex talk" from a priest or minister.
It's just that I would not even want to live in a world without the gay people I have known. And if they are here (and, yes, queer), is it so important to stop them from enjoying a sex act now and again?
This brings me back to your larger issue of chastity. I think chastity is greatly important if you are going to have children. But that is not the only successful way to live a life. And of all the criteria by which I might decide to keep a person in or out of my life, their sexual behavior unrelated to ME is simply unimportant. I might get bored of talking about their latest conquest, but people who I have as friends usually have a wealth of topics they can work from.
Anyway, does this give a little more feeling of depth to it, or do you still think I'm just reacting to the perception that "judgement is a sin?"
I don't think that's the case, but I do admit that it is something that bugs me more than a lot of other things people do to/for/about each other.
And that's probably something I should deal with someday.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
I think the better quote to pull out of my post would have been, “But I think a Christian parent who believes homosexual actions are sinful is not excused by the overriding importance of love from teaching his children.” (emphasis added) I’ve made no attempt to convince anyone that homosexual actions are sinful, nor would I in the context of an online forum. However, I assumed since you asked the question that started this thread that you thought so, since otherwise why would you be worried about you taught it to your children?
I agree that it is generally not our place to call out other people’s sinful actions. That’s why the Catholic Church has a private confessional. Breaking the seal of the confessional is close to the most serious offense a priest can commit.
There are situations where this is called for, however. Sins that touch on social justice issues (slavery, abortion, racism, economic oppression), for example, almost demand to be pointed out.
Other, more personal sins do not cry out for public condemnation, especially in a lopsided manner (ignoring heterosexual promiscuity while condemning monogamous homosexuals). However, in some cases it is necessary. Suppose a good friend asks your opinion on an aspect of his behavior? I think being a good Christian demands answering as honestly as possible.
All of this aside, however, there is a huge difference between teaching someone, especially a child, that a particular action is sinful and “judging the sins of others” or “concentrating on spotting and pointing out sin.” If you truly believe that homosexual actions are not wrong, then you should not teach your children that.
However, this doesn’t absolve you of your problem, it just moves it one step back from homosexuality. For example, if you think unbounded promiscuity is sinful, or even if you just think it’s unsafe, you’ll need to teach your children this while also teaching them not to judge others.
Even if you really mean that any sexual behavior is OK, you might have the same problem with drug use or some other action. If you teach your children not to do something (either because it’s wrong or it’s stupid), you run the risk of teaching them to judge others who choose to do it. So you still need to know how to balance the teachings of the core values of the Christian faith with the ability to choose a course of action wisely.
Dagonee P.S., has anyone ever read Lewis’s account of homosexuality at his prep school in Surprised by Joy? He makes a point of saying that he’s not going to lecture on the morality of it because it’s one of only two sins he’s never been tempted to (the other being gambling), so he doesn’t feel qualified to talk about it. While still saying such actions were wrong, he also pointed out that in some ways these relationships were the only vestige of love available in the school.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
The reason I quoted that part of your prior message was that I disagreed with it. It implied that I was deluding myself (as in you know for certain that God thinks homosexuality is a sin, and therefore I was just "pretending" it wasn't). As opposed to, maybe, having the thought in your mind that you could be mistaken, and that the scriptures (and/or interpretations of them) could also be less than 100% reliable on this issue.
I have absolutely no issue with you on things like parents' responsibility to teach their children the best they know how.
I might wish that some parents would go beyond teaching that something is "stupid" or "a sin" and give actual reasons for their beliefs, but then, they aren't my kids. And maybe at some ages, that's all a kid is equipped to absorb.
Learning not to judge is probably a lot harder than learning to judge. Learning how to judge well, is darn near impossible. And I assert that this is true even WITH a lifetime of studying Scripture and God.
And yet, so many think they do it so well that they believe they should decide for the rest of humanity too.
And that premise, I reject not just because I think it is anti-Christian, but because I know it is just plain wrong.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there may be too many different discussions going on here – I’m responding to AJ’s post about I Corinthians 13.
To put it in context, Paul wasn’t talking about love between two people, he was talking about how to behave toward one another in a Christian community. This isn’t a beautiful meditation on romantic love (in spite of the fact that it’s so often used that way at weddings) it’s a letter chewing out the Corinthian church for failing to act like a part of the Body of Christ.
Paul was concerned about the difference between how the Corinthians as a community were acting and how they were supposed to act. Every line that you quote refers back to an earlier part of the letter. And chapter thirteen is right in the middle of the discussion of spiritual gifts. The Corinthians have apparently been arguing about who’s the most spiritual, Paul tells them that the most important of the spiritual gifts is love, and then tells them about love so they can see how well they measure up. (Answer – not particularly well.) Then he goes back to reminding them that the purpose of spiritual gifts is to build up the community.
In the case of a husband claiming that his wife should “endure” being hit if she loves him, I’ve found it redirects things nicely to say, “let’s put aside for the moment what she should or shouldn’t do. How well are you doing at showing love for her?” Then he has to admit that hitting isn’t exactly loving behavior and maybe he should work on the log in his own eye. (And yes, I’m speaking from experience here. It’s remarkable how many people do use this passage to try to justify abuse.)
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
*scowl* dk, I believe it. I firmly believe there's a special place in hell for people who use religion as a weapon. That's the reason I have such an affinity for Javert, and it's one of the reasons I absolutely adore Jacob in the Book of Mormon. Right before a big speech where he chastised everyone for pride and vanity and then ripped the men apart for sleeping around and destroying the trust of their wives, he apologized for the pain his words would cause, and related how he obtained his errand from the Lord. I have a feeling Jacob knew what it was like to be on the receiving end of a selfish twisting of scripture.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I realize my diatribe was a bit of a tangent from the main discussion. In my fundamentalist Christian years, that whole chapter was held up as the golden standard for love and it kind of bugged me. Went through the book of Corinthians in Bible studies listened to sermons through the book from the pulipit a couple of times and nobody explained it like you just did dkw.
quote:Bob_Scopatz said The reason I quoted that part of your prior message was that I disagreed with it. It implied that I was deluding myself (as in you know for certain that God thinks homosexuality is a sin, and therefore I was just "pretending" it wasn't).
As I stated in the earlier post, I was acting from the assumption, derived from your initial post, that you believed homosexual actions were sinful. “Pretending” did not refer to you “deluding” yourself but rather to not naming actions you believe to be sinful as sinful for fear of teaching your children to be judgmental. And that statement only came out after some philosophical meanderings with MrSquicky, who, as best I understand it, was stating that the meta-moral emphasis on love in Christianity is incompatible with (or at least harmed by) the rule/commandment portions of the faith.
The statement only makes sense in the context of a Christianity that demands both non-judgmental love and adherence to a particular moral code. Almost any “victimless” sin (in the sense that the only apparent victims are God and the actor) could be substituted in that statement for homosexual actions.
If you truly don’t believe homosexual actions or are sinful (i.e., think they are not sinful or are not sure), then that part of the message doesn’t apply to you. But if that’s so, what is this thread about? That you shouldn’t teach your children something you don’t believe? I think we all knew that already.
posted
Dagonee, That's not exactly what I'm saying. I'll try to say it a litle clearer. I'm not setting rules explicitly against love, not really. Instead, it's a matter of what the ultimate end is. When I talk about the legalistic tradition (it's a real thing, honest, not just something I made up), I'm talking specifically about the idea that the end of morality is the following of rules, with no more meaning than that. It's entirely possible - I'd even argue necessary due to human imperfection - to have a system of rules as a guide and a gauge. It's when these rules are followed for their own sake instead as a path towards the ideal, or at least made more important that the meaning behind them, that the problems come in.
For example, take the 10 Commandments thing. There is a certain group of people who believe that posting the 10 Commandments in our schools is going to make our children more moral. The reasoning seems to me that somehow, without any conscious effort on the children's part, having those rules posted is going to affect their behavior. Now, not once in the attempts to put these rules up has anyone suggested posting the part in the Bible that I've been referencing, where Jesus says that the root of morality is love for other people. And they never will. That's not the goal of their religion, even though it is the core of Christianity.
Forget posting it. That's a maxim that I think we should work into our classroom lessons themselves. I'd welcome it almost as much as I'd oppose forcing the 10 Commandments on people. Do people have a problem presenting it in it's religious-oriented Biblical context? No problem. The message and meaning is easily translated into secular terms. Teach from the principle without any religious connotations, and, if the kids are taken by it, they've become good christians, even if they aren't good CHRISTIANS.
But, again, that's not going to happen. I'd say that nearly all of the trying to infuse religion into our schools would much prefer CHRISTIANS to people who follow the fundamental essense of Christianity, but pray to a different god, or to no god at all.
I really am curious to know who much of what I'm saying you agree with, or at least how much you can understand why I think that way. What do ya think of old J. S. Mill up there and what do you think of me saying that a large part of the Christianity that people ignore is the core and best parts of the religion? Or maybe you can show me how either that's not the best and most core parts or how my perceptions are totally off.
posted
Speaking as someone who's seen something like it...
Perhaps these people figure that these core beliefs are so completely basic that no one can fail to know them. What is missing are certain less-obvious applications. So they focus on the applications and leave out what they consider obvious.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
It's nice to have backup.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
